|
Comparative Responsibility
Comparative responsibility (known as comparative fault in some jurisdictions) is a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a lawsuit for a single injury. Comparative responsibility may apply to intentional torts as well as negligence and encompasses the doctrine of comparative negligence. Comparative responsibility divides the fault among parties by percentages, and then accordingly divides the money awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may only recover the percentage of the damages he is not at fault for. If a plaintiff is found to be 25% at fault, he can recover only 75% of his damages. There are several circumstances that make comparative responsibility intricate: when the plaintiff shares in fault for the damages, when a defendant who has a share of the fault cannot be included in the suit, when one of the defendants can not pay, and when there are charges of both negligence and intentional torts in the same action. United States Currently, only Alab ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tort Law
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from cus ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Intentional Torts
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken. Background As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negligence
Negligence (Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as ''negligence'' involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of ''carelessness'' possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Elements of negligence claims Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence, called non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors all contributed to cause the plaintiff's damages. It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence that disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages. Types of comparative negligence Prior to the late 1960s, only a few states had adopted the system. When comparative negligence was adopted, three main versions were used. The first is called "pure" comparative negligence. Under this type of comparative negligence, a plaintiff who ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plaintiff
A plaintiff ( Π in legal shorthand) is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an ''action'') before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy. If this search is successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order for damages). "Plaintiff" is the term used in civil cases in most English-speaking jurisdictions, the notable exceptions being England and Wales, where a plaintiff has, since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, been known as a "claimant" and Scotland, where the party has always been known as the "pursuer". In criminal cases, the prosecutor brings the case against the defendant, but the key complaining party is often called the "complainant". In some jurisdictions, a lawsuit is commenced by filing a summons, claim form or a complaint. These documents are known as pleadings, that set forth the alleged wrongs committed by the defendant or defendants with a de ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contributory Negligence
In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence. Because the contributory negligence doctrine can lead to harsh results, many common law jurisdictions have abolished it in favor of a "comparative fault" or "comparative negligence" approach. A comparative negligence approach reduces the plaintiff's damages award by the percentage of fault that the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for his or her own injury. For example, if a jury thinks that the plaintiff is 30% at fault for his own injury, the plaintiff's damages award will be reduced by 30%. History The doctrine of contributory negligence was dominant in U.S. jurisprudence in the 19th and 20th century. The English case Butterfield v. Forrester is generally recognized as the first appearance, although in this case the jud ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Joint And Several Liability
Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be: * jointly liable, or * severally liable, or * jointly and severally liable. Joint liability If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the full amount of the relevant obligation. So if a married couple takes a loan from a bank, the loan agreement will normally provide that they are to be "jointly liable" for the full amount. If one party dies, disappears, or is declared bankrupt, the other individual remains fully liable. Accordingly, the bank may sue all living co-promisors for the full amount. However, in suing, the creditor has only one cause of action; i.e., the creditor can sue for each debt only once. If, for example, there are three partners, and the creditor sues all of them for the outstanding loan amount and one of them pays the liability, the creditor cannot recover further amounts from the partners who did not contribute to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Strict Liability
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them. In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous": # storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area # pile driving # b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
In Pari Delicto
''In pari delicto (potior/melior est conditio possidentis)'', Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition of the possessor)", is a legal term used to refer to two persons or entities who are equally at fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort. The doctrine is subject to a number of exceptions, including that the plaintiff must be an active, voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct, the plaintiff's wrongdoing must be at least substantially equal to or greater than that of the defendant,James M. Fischer (2010)''Understanding Remedies, ''. the "adverse interest" exception, and the "innocent insider" exception. The doctrine The phrase is most commonly used by courts when relief is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of equal wrongdoing by both parties, or greater culpability on the part of the plaintiff. The phrase means, in essence, that if both parties are equally at fault or the plaintiff is at greater fault, the court will not inv ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tort Law
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from cus ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
